I wouldn't be sir prized if he passed McCoy on the depth chart. I think he might have a better arm and accurate arm then him from the highlights I thought. He also got some wheels too help us prepare for QB's as Wilson , RG3 and other runners etc.

I think people just have it set in their mind that "ZOMG Earl Thomas is teh best safety" because:

a.) Thomas was a high first round pick in a recent high-profile draft class

b.) He happens to play on one of the best defenses, and best secondaries in the game, so they automatically assume that he must be the main reason their secondary is so good (it's not - the secondary is good because Sherman is an elite CB, Browner is a good #2 CB, and Kam Chancellor is a really good SS)

If people actually watched Seahawks games closely, they'd realize that Thomas is basically Just a Guy or slightly better than JAG playing with a bunch of other DBs that are really good behind a great pass rush.

Thomas sucks in the run game - he gets trucked constantly and runs around tackles. He is OK in the pass game, but misses assignments frequently.

Earl Thomas is a stud. Metrics is pretty much useless when evaluating free safeties. Look at the all 22 and then tell me he's overrated. Hands down the best FS in football and it's not even close. His range is unbelievable. And he saved those CBs so many times.

The Seattle CBs are great, but they're getting a little too much credit. They actually get beat a good amount of times but Thomas cleans up behind them. And their SS is nothing without Thomas allowing him to hunt in the box on pretty much every play as well. Thomas is the key to that defense. He allows them to play their scheme.

No metric can measure that. Which is why I typically hate PFF for the most part, bc many of their metrics are BS.

Earl Thomas is a stud. Metrics is pretty much useless when evaluating free safeties. Look at the all 22 and then tell me he's overrated. Hands down the best FS in football and it's not even close. His range is unbelievable. And he saved those CBs so many times.

The Seattle CBs are great, but they're getting a little too much credit. They actually get beat a good amount of times but Thomas cleans up behind them. And their SS is nothing without Thomas allowing him to hunt in the box on pretty much every play as well. Thomas is the key to that defense. He allows them to play their scheme.

No metric can measure that. Which is why I typically hate PFF for the most part, bc many of their metrics are BS.

Profootballfocus rates players BASED ON ALL-22.

They employ a team of video reviewers to watch every snap, and then they give each player a grade on every single snap based on what he did on that play.

PFF is the ultimate "eyeball test" subjective grading website out there. If you want to complain about "metrics" you probably should take some time to learn what they actually do when they compile their player grades.

They employ a team of video reviewers to watch every snap, and then they give each player a grade on every single snap based on what he did on that play.

PFF is the ultimate "eyeball test" subjective grading website out there. If you want to complain about "metrics" you probably should take some time to learn what they actually do when they compile their player grades.

Yet they ding players for being "out of position" which is ridiculous, considering they don't have access to the playbook or know exactly what the coverage was.

Which is why it's so hard evaluating DBs to begin with, unless you have access to the playbook and know what the disguise was, what the coverage was and what the responsibilities are based on the keys, you can't accurately claim who is "out of position"

Which is what they do. Which is why they're not credible.

What you can do as a fan, when looking at all 22 without access to playbooks is evaluate individual technique, range, recovery. That much you can do. And you evaluate the best you can based on what you know.

But PFF is notorious for making assumptions that they cannot confirm, and forming conclusions based on that, which is why many of their evaluations are not entirely accurate.

Oh Thumper, one day you'll learn. I guess Kevin Kolb still hasn't sunk in yet.

They employ a team of video reviewers to watch every snap, and then they give each player a grade on every single snap based on what he did on that play.

PFF is the ultimate "eyeball test" subjective grading website out there. If you want to complain about "metrics" you probably should take some time to learn what they actually do when they compile their player grades.

But even watching the games, we as fans, or paid analysts can't be definitive in our assessments since we don't know the play calls.

For example, against Miami last year Aqib Talib was in coverage on Brian Hartline. He was in trail position and let Hartline get by him (normally a clear indication of safety help over the top). However Steve Gregory wasn't there and Hartline would have had an easy TD had it not been for an overthrow by Tannehill.

So, who is at fault. From memory PFF blamed Talib since he was in the initial coverage, but if his job was to play trail and have Gregory cover deep then he did nothing wrong.

There is no absolutes in football. It can't be boxed in to certain metrics. There are way too many variables in any one play, let alone an entire game to comfortably grade each player

And again, as someone who has watched quite a bit of Seahawks tape, let me tell you that Thomas is vastly overrated compared to what you actually think he does.

He typically plays Cover-1 free safety. All of the work in the run game is done by Chancellor in the box. All of the work on the WRs is done by the strong press coverage of Sherman and Browner on the outside.

Thomas doesn't "free lance" in the run game as much as he tackles RBs downfield when they get past the box, which means he is usually part of a bad play. When the Seahawks are successful, the opposing running game usually isn't getting past the area right behind the defensive line and Thomas isn't involved.

In the passing game, Thomas will find himself either on TEs down the seam or bracketing WRs on the outside. He is rarely in one-on-one coverage on WRs. It's easier for a FS to provide bracket coverage than actual one-on-one coverage. And when Thomas does provide bracket coverage, he is again benefiting from the heavy lifting done by the big CBs in press coverage at the line when they are giving their jams. And when Thomas does find himself in coverage, he is often giving up gains due to his small stature and inability to provide sound coverage, or he is blowing assignments. I've seen it happen numerous times in Seattle games the past three years.

People who actually watch Seahawks games would understand immediately when I say that Earl Thomas is the worst DB on his own team, and simply cannot be in the discussion for "best safety in the NFL".

Yet they ding players for being "out of position" which is ridiculous, considering they don't have access to the playbook or know exactly what the coverage was.

Which is why it's so hard evaluating DBs to begin with, unless you have access to the playbook and know what the disguise was, what the coverage was and what the responsibilities are based on the keys, you can't accurately claim who is "out of position"

Which is what they do. Which is why they're not credible.

What you can do as a fan, when looking at all 22 without access to playbooks is evaluate individual technique, range, recovery. That much you can do. And you evaluate the best you can based on what you know.

But PFF is notorious for making assumptions that they cannot confirm, and forming conclusions based on that, which is why many of their evaluations are not entirely accurate.

Oh Thumper, one day you'll learn. I guess Kevin Kolb still hasn't sunk in yet.

Hey bigbluedefense, let's talk about credibility...

Profootballfocus.com generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue, is respected around the league, provides data to actual NFL front offices...

Should I take them for their word or listen to a random guy on an internet forum named "Bigbluedefense" who has probably never earned a nickel in his life with his football knowledge or opinions?

You need to realize that Profootballfocus.com is far more credible than anyone posting on these forums. You make it sound like they're a fly-by-night operation that shouldn't be trusted for anything.

It's hard to have a discussion about football when you're constantly resorting to ad hominem attacks and questioning basic things promulgated by a very respectable, professional organization.

I mean, here we are, trying to seriously argue about the merits of Earl Thomas as a safety in the NFL, and I'm talking actual Football Xs-and-Os with regard to Seattle's scheme, and bringing up rankings from a pro football site, and here you are talking something random about "trophy cases", referencing some team I'm not even a fan of. Huh? That shows me that you've given up wrt: the Thomas argument, and you don't have any info or data to even reference.

You need to realize that Profootballfocus.com is far more credible than anyone posting on these forums. You make it sound like they're a fly-by-night operation that shouldn't be trusted for anything.

It's hard to have a discussion about football when you're constantly resorting to ad hominem attacks and questioning basic things promulgated by a very respectable, professional organization.

I'm a Raiders fan, btw.

PFF is the leader in using metrics to evaluate personnel, but to say all teams use their metrics is a joke, bc you have no proof of that. Metrics are still not widely accepted, some teams do take them into consideration but many teams don't, for the reasons I stated. It's actually been a new trend that is starting to become part of the evaluation by some teams, Tom Dimitroff being the leader in that, but the majority of front offices still don't use them or rely on them for any information.

Their evaluations like any other evaluation, is biased. My opinion is no better than theirs, and theirs is not any better than mine, bc neither of us have the playbook, it's that simple.

Saying "well the experts say this" is a cop out used by people who aren't intelligent enough to form their own opinions. Because last time I checked, "experts" are quite often wrong with their evaluations.

Professionals in football are no different from professionals in any other industry. You have some good ones, and some bad ones. You don't assume they're all good just bc they're in the industry. You use your own judgement to evaluate.

I think PFF has a place for certain forms of evaluation, but I don't believe everything they do is entirely accurate. They're a business at the end of the day, they're going to try to quantify everything to produce a product. Doesn't mean the product is without flaws.

And again, as someone who has watched quite a bit of Seahawks tape, let me tell you that Thomas is vastly overrated compared to what you actually think he does.

He typically plays Cover-1 free safety. All of the work in the run game is done by Chancellor in the box. All of the work on the WRs is done by the strong press coverage of Sherman and Browner on the outside.

Chancellor is in the box and effective as a box safety BC Thomas' range allows him to be in the box to begin with. If you put Chancellor in any other role, his play is greatly diminished. Thomas makes Chancellor look a lot better than he is. And ok? You want your FS covering WRs? I sure as hell don't, that's what CBs are for. Thomas can cover one if he wants to, but why should he? He's a safety, not a CB.

This entire point is completely irrelevant. In fact it proves MY point, of how valuable he is to the structure of the defense. They can't play this coverage shell on all 3 downs without him.

Thomas doesn't "free lance" in the run game as much as he tackles RBs downfield when they get past the box, which means he is usually part of a bad play. When the Seahawks are successful, the opposing running game usually isn't getting past the area right behind the defensive line and Thomas isn't involved.

Ok. Cool. You do realize he's like 20 yards down the field as the High Post right? He's not going to make tackles in the run game, that's not his job. That's why Chancellor is in the box. That's his job and the front 7's job.

In the passing game, Thomas will find himself either on TEs down the seam or bracketing WRs on the outside. He is rarely in one-on-one coverage on WRs. It's easier for a FS to provide bracket coverage than actual one-on-one coverage. And when Thomas does provide bracket coverage, he is again benefiting from the heavy lifting done by the big CBs in press coverage at the line when they are giving their jams. And when Thomas does find himself in coverage, he is often giving up gains due to his small stature and inability to provide sound coverage, or he is blowing assignments. I've seen it happen numerous times in Seattle games the past three years.

He's playing the deep ball. Seattle is able to be so aggressive at the LOS with WRs bc they are comfortable getting beat with Thomas back there. He dictates the coverage shells with his incredible range. He's not gonna cover WRs, again, thats the role of a CB. Defense 101. Oh and he's getting beat deep all the time you say? Funny. Considering Seattle rarely got beat deep this year.

People who actually watch Seahawks games would understand immediately when I say that Earl Thomas is the worst DB on his own team, and simply cannot be in the discussion for "best safety in the NFL".